Sanjay Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 202410990100042/B-121/N.D.P.S./Year 2024-25, P.S. Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive step against the petitioner for detention pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.04.2025.

¶25

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 202410990100042/B-121/NDPS Year 2024-25, P.S. Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby in exercise of powers vested under Section 3 read with Section 10 of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short Act, 1988), the respondent No. 2 has directed for detention of petitioner for the period of 3 months. The said order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground of registration of two Criminal Cases bearing Crime No. 53/2016 & 354/2024 for the offence under Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short Act, 1985), out of which, the petitioner has been acquitted in respect of Crime No. 53/2016 by judgment dated 15.06.2017 and one criminal case arising out of Crime No. 354/2024 is under trial, in which, the Hon'ble High Court has granted bail to the petitioner in M.Cr.C.

¶27

3

¶28

No.7162/2024 vide order dated 11/11/2024. He would submit that while passing the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has failed to consider the response submitted by the petitioner in its true perspective.

¶29

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is having similar nature of criminal antecedents for which, cases were registered against him and after considering the all the aspects of the matter in its true perspective, the respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order impugned, which is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. He would also submit that the petitioner is avoiding the arrest and he absconded.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote the Section 3 and 10 of the Act, 1988.

¶32

3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons .—

¶33

1. The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to

¶34

4

¶35

do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

¶36

2. When any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order.

¶37

3. For the purposes of Cl. (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention.

¶38

10. Cases in which and circumstances under which persons may be detained for periods longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of Advisory Board-

¶39

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person (including a foreigner) in respect of whom an order of detention is made under this Act at any time before the 1[30th day of July. 1996], may be detained without obtaining, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of Cl. (4) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period longer than three months but not exceeding six months from the date of his detention, where the order of detention has been made against such person with a view to preventing him from engaging in traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, is satisfied that such person

¶40

5

¶41

engages or is likely to engage in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into, out of, through or within any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic and makes a declaration to that effect within five weeks of the detention of such person.

¶42

Explanation 1 .— In this sub-section, "area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic means—

¶43

(i) the Indian customs water ;

¶44

(ii) the customs airports ;

¶45

(iii) the metropolitan cities of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Madras and the city of Varanasi ;

¶46

(iv) the inland area one hundred kilometres in width from the coast of India falling within the territories of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Wes Bengal and the Union territories of Daman and Diu and Pondicherry ;

¶47

(v) the inland area one hundred kilometres in width from —

¶48

(a) the India-Pakistan border in the States of Gujarat, Punjab and Rajasthan;

¶49

(b) the India-Nepal border in the States of Bihar, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal;

¶50

(c) the India-Burma border in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland ;

¶51

(d) the India -Bangladesh border in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal;

¶52

(e) the India-Bhutan border in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Sikkim and West Bengal;

¶53

(vi) such other area or customs station, as the Central Government may, having regard to the vulnerability of

¶54

6

¶55

such area or customs station, as the case may be, to illicit it traffic, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf

¶56

Explanation 2 . — For the purposes of Expl. 1 "customs station" has the same meaning as in Cl. (13) of Sec. 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962).

¶57

(2) In the case of any person detained under a detention order to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply, Sec. 9 shall have effect subject to the following modifications, namely :

¶58

(i) in Clause (b), for the words "shall, within five weeks", the words "shall, within four months and two weeks" shall be substituted;

¶59

(ii) Clause (c),—

¶60

(a) for the words "the detention of the person concerned", the words "the continued detention of the person concerned" shall be substituted;

¶61

(b) for the words "eleven weeks" , the words "five months and three weeks" shall be substituted;

¶62

(iii) in Clause (f) , for the words "for the detention" at both the places where they occur, the words "for the continued detention" shall be substituted.”

¶63

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is an habitual offender and hence, appropriate proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner. The respondent No.2 passed the impugned order after following the due process of law as provided under Sections 3 of the Act, 1988. It is also evident that the petitioner is absconding to avoid his arrest.

¶64

7

¶65

In the result, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶66

SD/SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶67

Gowri/ Amardeep

Sanjay Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aarti Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Chowdhury Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Vs Laxmi Bai

Anand Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahadev Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Durgesh Ghritlahare